[Redrum]

One criterion the Supreme Court has set for government efforts to restrict speech is that they be content neutral.

I love the possibilities:  " Eat at Arby's!  Although, To Be Honest, McDonalds or Burger King Are Great Places to Eat"

                                      " Eat Food"
                 
                                        " Elect Joe Candidate Although His Opponent Is Equally Qualified"

[Redrum]

One criterion the Supreme Court has set for government efforts to restrict speech is that they be content neutral.

I love the possibilities:  " Eat at Arby's!  Although, To Be Honest, McDonalds or Burger King Are Great Places to Eat"

                                      " Eat Food"
                 
                                        " Elect Joe Candidate Although His Opponent Is Equally Qualified"

[Hulk01]

Incredible.

As someone who has both drafted a federal court decision on the First Amendment (Wilson vs. Mollala School Board) and created advertising for many years, I find the court's rationale so worthy of ridicule that a word beyond "ridiculous" needs to be coined.

The objective of every creator of what is called "outdoor" (billboards are the best known form, but there are others), is to attract and hold the reader's attention.  A billboard that does not do this is a failure; and a billboard that accomplishes that goal is, according to the court's decision, "a threat to public safety."  And, for that matter, so are halter tops and sun dresses, large breasted women, and most Italian cars. 

Anything that attracts people's attention is a threat to divert their attention from something else, and that diversion certainly might result in harm.  And by the court's rationale, "attention-getting things," or at least those with words on them, are subject to restrictions by state and local governments without regard to their protection under the First Amendment.

This seems preposterous: We have the freedom to express ourselves, provided it doesn't get too much attention? 

[Hulk01]

Incredible.

As someone who has both drafted a federal court decision on the First Amendment (Wilson vs. Mollala School Board) and created advertising for many years, I find the court's rationale so worthy of ridicule that a word beyond "ridiculous" needs to be coined.

The objective of every creator of what is called "outdoor" (billboards are the best known form, but there are others), is to attract and hold the reader's attention.  A billboard that does not do this is a failure; and a billboard that accomplishes that goal is, according to the court's decision, "a threat to public safety."  And, for that matter, so are halter tops and sun dresses, large breasted women, and most Italian cars. 

Anything that attracts people's attention is a threat to divert their attention from something else, and that diversion certainly might result in harm.  And by the court's rationale, "attention-getting things," or at least those with words on them, are subject to restrictions by state and local governments without regard to their protection under the First Amendment.

This seems preposterous: We have the freedom to express ourselves, provided it doesn't get too much attention? 

[fullmetal]

How deeply in bed are the city of Norfolk and ODU?  That's ridiculous that the city would bend backward that far for the university.

[fullmetal]

How deeply in bed are the city of Norfolk and ODU?  That's ridiculous that the city would bend backward that far for the university.

[FarmBoy]

The article makes me wonder: if signage like that isn't protected by free speech, why don't abortion clinics go after all those signs protesters use outside their facilities? I can't think of a more provocative and "distracting" signage than the images some of those people carry and plaster on their vehicles.

[FarmBoy]

The article makes me wonder: if signage like that isn't protected by free speech, why don't abortion clinics go after all those signs protesters use outside their facilities? I can't think of a more provocative and "distracting" signage than the images some of those people carry and plaster on their vehicles.

[fullmetal]

Gentlemen's clubs too.  Distasteful yet distracting signage in many cases.  One might also make a case for the rubber, um, male body parts affixed to trailer hitches in less-progressive areas of the USA being obscene and distracting.

[fullmetal]

Gentlemen's clubs too.  Distasteful yet distracting signage in many cases.  One might also make a case for the rubber, um, male body parts affixed to trailer hitches in less-progressive areas of the USA being obscene and distracting.

[Mick]

Gentlemen's clubs too. 

I've never actually been in one of those.  If I'd been in one at age 18, my head would've probably exploded.

[Mick]

Gentlemen's clubs too. 

I've never actually been in one of those.  If I'd been in one at age 18, my head would've probably exploded.

[g1313]

It's a pet peeve of mine when substantial facts of US court decisions are misreported because I like to believe that at least upper-court decisions are well-reasoned. Note that IANAL so this is based mostly on a layman's reading of the actual Appeals Court opinion: http://www.courthousenews.com/home/OpenA...sID=130022

In this case, the radio station violated existing city code (which disallows any sign larger than 75 square feet) with a sign that was 375 square feet, FIVE TIMES LARGER than what was allowed. So the comparisons that are being made to commercial billboards are not valid, presumably if there was a 375 sq ft. billboard for anything else, the city would also have had it taken down.

The radio station filed suit with two key arguments
1) The city code is not allowed to place size limits on signs, since it violates free speech.
2) Even if the city is allowed to have size limits, they selectively enforced the regulation with an intent to discriminate against the radio station.

In the first argument, the court ruled that it is permissible to place limits on signs as long as the limits did not discriminate based on the content of the sign. In this case, the limits are based on a desire to preserve the aesthetics of the neighborhood and traffic safety.

In the second, the court ruled that the radio station did not provide any evidence that enforcement was selective, presumably because they did not present any evidence that there were other oversize signs that the city had allowed. I didn't dig into the original filing to see whether they could have made a stronger case here.

[g1313]

It's a pet peeve of mine when substantial facts of US court decisions are misreported because I like to believe that at least upper-court decisions are well-reasoned. Note that IANAL so this is based mostly on a layman's reading of the actual Appeals Court opinion: http://www.courthousenews.com/home/OpenA...sID=130022

In this case, the radio station violated existing city code (which disallows any sign larger than 75 square feet) with a sign that was 375 square feet, FIVE TIMES LARGER than what was allowed. So the comparisons that are being made to commercial billboards are not valid, presumably if there was a 375 sq ft. billboard for anything else, the city would also have had it taken down.

The radio station filed suit with two key arguments
1) The city code is not allowed to place size limits on signs, since it violates free speech.
2) Even if the city is allowed to have size limits, they selectively enforced the regulation with an intent to discriminate against the radio station.

In the first argument, the court ruled that it is permissible to place limits on signs as long as the limits did not discriminate based on the content of the sign. In this case, the limits are based on a desire to preserve the aesthetics of the neighborhood and traffic safety.

In the second, the court ruled that the radio station did not provide any evidence that enforcement was selective, presumably because they did not present any evidence that there were other oversize signs that the city had allowed. I didn't dig into the original filing to see whether they could have made a stronger case here.